THE MAIL.

MAIL ARRIVING VIA THIS WEBSITE is more voluminous than I had at first anticipated. I appreciate all of it, including those letters that are other than supportive or constructive. I read every letter and answer all, although I ask readers’ patience in the latter task.

As the mail arrives, it often occurs to me that what readers of the column have to say may be of interest to other readers. These letters are posted here. To preserve readers’ privacy, those letters chosen are signed with initials only. There are occasional exceptions, as when a reader’s remarks deserve, in my view, all the light one could possibly shine on them.

]] [[

From WHD:Subject: Journal Entry #39

I have never been a fan of Trump. His world view is generally odious to me in the particulars. This decision however is the first truly presidential thing he has done.

That makes a false flag attempt on his life very likely indeed, as the probably 3 trillion we spend every year on “security” in all it’s privatized forms, is 3 trillion of motive to keep the status quo, warpigging gravy train in perpetual motion. No amount of fat tax cuts for the wealthiest imperial monopolists is likely to protect him. His base of course will tear this country apart if they succeed in assassinating him. These imperial warpigs are not as omnipotent as people think.

I truly hope Trump surrounds himself with people who actually believe in pulling back on the war machine. I will support him in that at least.

Here’s hoping

] [

From EL:Subject: Journal Entry #39

I’m with GKJames;’ comment. Imputing strategy and a program of goals to Trump is like saying that a roomba has a master plan to clean a carpet..

] [

From GKJames:Subject: Journal Entry #39

I struggle with this analysis.

First, “Trump” and “policy” in the same breath causes synapses to fry. That the president, an id- / impulse-driven creature if there ever was one, has “policies” is belied by the evidence, assuming the conventional understanding of the term: a thought-through approach to an issue, including input from people who know things, a cost/benefit calculation, the national (vs. personal) interest, and consideration of unintended consequences.

Second, many of us agree with the principle of reducing the American affection for bang-bang/shoot-shoot. But the reduction (if it happens at all) won’t occur in a vacuum even if his well-known lack of interest in details tells us that the president believes it does. To criticize the critics of the Syria withdrawal decision, then, for being reactionaries elides from the discussion the source of (i) his original 2016 campaign impulse, which was to be contrarian merely for the sake of it, i.e., consideration of matters beyond applause garnered at rallies never figured in the equation; and (ii) his recent Syria impulse, which was triggered by nothing more than Erdogan’s asking, What are you still doing in Syria [now that ISIS has been defeated]? Averse to thought as the US president is, he instantly decided to give the order to withdraw. (That this left the execrable Bolton, also on the phone, speechless is one hell of a life-is-a-double-edged-sword moment.)

Third, no reasonable person disagrees with the importance of “gaining control over the military-industrial complex”. If it happens to be this president who gets that ball rolling, great. But how likely is that to happen in a meaningful way? For starters, he’s chosen Patrick Shanahan, a Boeing executive and poster-boy for the defense industry’s influence at the Pentagon and in Congress. And does anyone of sound mind really believe that, when defense contractors start bleating — be it to Congress or, in the case of Academi LLC (f/k/a Blackwater), directly to the White House via Kushner — about the loss of jobs in the US and lucrative business opportunities outside it, this president is going to insist on reining in the military-industrial complex? (See, Khashoggi dismemberment and sales to Saudi Arabia.) As with everything else, the president shows no sign of seriousness, precisely why he is so easily manipulated by various constituencies, and why there is zero need for any of these constituencies to go through the trouble of offing him. Bluster aside, he is more inconsequential than his predecessors.

Finally, it’s beyond dispute that White House occupants are up against the entire policy machinery of the government; one against many, even if the one is the Commander-in-Chief. But, for better or worse, that machinery has long reflected the consensus, the source for which is the electorate, whose preferences are carried out by elected representatives. There’s a reason why South Carolinians (as but one example) repeatedly inflict Graham and his self-proclaimed foreign policy expertise on the country: they love what he does and how he does it. Certainly, there is a Deep State. But, by and large, the public doesn’t mind it, which is why it will endure and prosper long after the current president leaves office.

] [

From JH:Subject: Journal Entry #39

I’m thinking that the chances that Trump will complete his first term are less now. I think impeachment or assassination are his fate. The United States government has become like a rogue elephant. Large, uncontrollable, and running amok. The deep state already thinks that it is an imperium and will continue to behave that way until either the economy collapses under the weight of debt or we get in a war with Russia/China. The first would be painful but the second would be disastrous.

] [

From Larry:Subject: The Nation Article

Mr. Lawrence,
First I want to thank you for writing the article in The Nation magazine about the supposed Russian “hack.” We are sadly living in a time where the media that we used to rely on to look into these critical issues have abandoned it. If it were the Trump administration making the same claims, our media would be crawling all over it looking for any holes and inconsistencies.

I just re-read your piece and was curious if there is anything new to add. Are the conclusions still valid? Has there been any additional evidence that the group can analyze? Have you been in contact with any of those that helped reach the conclusions on whether their findings still show that there was NO “hack”? If you have any links to updated reports or conclusions from those groups, please share them with me.

Have a good weekend.
Larry

] [

From R.A.:Subject: Correction to article on Korea

Vancouver, Canada
Hello Patrick,
I sent the folowing correction note to The Nation today (July 6):

Hello The Nation,
In the concluding paragraph of his article, Patrick Lawrence writes, ‘Shortly after Pyongyang’s missile launch, Xi Jinping sat with Vladimir Putin in Beijing …’ I believe he is referring to the meeting of the two that took place in MOSCOW, on July 4, 2017.
R.A.

I thank RA of Vancouver for his corrective. The change was immediately made (and noted in italics) in the column. –P.L.

] [

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:

L. Waramaug,Monday aft 4th.

Maria.
What a v generously supportive and encouraging letter. I thank you immensely for it. I have thought all along since publishing Time in 2013, This book will find its way and have its day. You keep the conviction alive.
It has seemed to me just lately that all I said in Time No Longer lies before us yet more clearly than it did when I wrote in 2011-12. Anyway, always v pleased and honored to hear from another reader whom the book reached and spoke to.
By all means gush, of course.
You’re surviving Scott Walker, I take it. Of all the things he did, I thought ripping into the Univ. of Wisc., one of the country’s premier institutions, w/ all sorts of superb historians (esp the historians) to its credit,–this was Walker’s crudest act.
Kind regards.
Patrick.

From M.D.:

Dear Mr. Smith,

I just finished reading your book, “Time No Longer”. What a magnificent book! I found it clear but not simple in it’s analysis and opinion. This book helped me to understand how this insane election outcome happened, although it clearly didn’t discuss the particular peculiarity of 2017 US politics. This makes the book prescient which is always a test of validity for any theory. Many of the points you made in your book helped clarify and expand upon so many of my own ideas which were sort of swimming around in my head, looking for some sort of cohesion. You also introduced me to so much in the way of new insight and perspective.

No doubt, my note is less scholarly than many you normally receive. I am no historian or academic. But that only adds to the praiseworthiness of your work! It was very clear and engaging to a middle aged physical therapist in a smaller city in Wisconsin! We seek our understanding, too. Thank you for writing such an important book and making it accessible without sacrificing weight or content. The ability to do that is rare and beautiful.

Would it be inappropriate for me to gush a bit about how much I admire your work? I kind of want to do that.

Sincerely, Maria D.

] [

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:

Allen.

How v kind of you to say. Thank you. Pleased you liked the jottings. Elese, now famed as “S.V.D.,” tells me, People want to hear about you–what you’re like, and all that. As a hack, I’m v instinctively wary of the first person deployed in the service of autobiography, but there it is.
Thanks again.
The McG piece deserves all the eyes it gets, as does Hersh’s, of course–and speaking of which, this:

Had not seen your piece on Hersh when I wrote earlier. Came to Hersh’s piece via McGovern, though.
Had spotted your Italian journal entry earlier, but saved it for a time when I was settled and unrushed.
Glad I did. It was one jewel after another, reflecting in the light.
Thank you for writing about these true things in these times.
A

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:

Allen.
Thanks for the note. Not sure how you came upon my remarks on Hersh’s piece (assuming you did), but you see the problem easily enough. Do not forget all we used to say about the suppression of the truth in the Soviet period. The great writers had to publish abroad. Are we so different in our predicament now?
Kind regards.
Patrick.

From A.B.:Subject: Hersh

Seymour Hersh can’t get published in the U.S. or in Britain.
There’s not a more gifted and thorough journalist in our generation, to my mind.
His piece doesn’t even show up in searches for news on Syria.
Say it ain’t so, Joe.

] [

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:Norfolk,
Sunday morn 25th.

Gary.
Thanks for the note, which sounded a v sympathetic ring when it arrived. Your thoughts are exactly mine: I don’t like Trump, but I like the democratic process more than I dislike the president. Perfectly simple. We’re on the v same page in this.
Kind regards.
Patrick.

From G.F.:Subject: Soft coup and CIA and Trump

And if the soft coup doesn’t work?

Seems I recall what happened to another president who didn’t agree with the CIA’s foreign affairs agenda about fifty or so years ago. Of course, if it does happen again, it will be a thousand times more subtle than that. And, in fact, so subtle, that most people won’t even know it did happened.

Glad to see that you’re writing about this, and at least making those in power think twice about acting completely beyond the law. I happened not to be a Trump fan, but I am a fan of democracy, which the liberal media is making a mockery of, as usual, along with the CIA.

And, just for the record, no, I’m not a right wing-fanatic, nor a religious nut. I happen to by apolitical.

And like so many other Americans whose voices are never heard, a hell of a lot smarter than the average over-educated, or over-connected idiot, form the left or the right, who always manages to get himself elected President.

] [

From C.M.A.:Subject: Whitney interview part 2?

Please tell me you haven’t left The Nation. I’m impatiently awaiting the second installment of your discussion with Joel Whitney. Did I miss it?

Enjoyed your letter published in the May 22-29 print edition of TN. Although I hadn’t realized that you were an actual supporter of “the most reactionary president in living memory!”. Silly me. Apparently I’ve been misreading you all this time.

Thanks! And take care!
Kind regards,
Cara

] [

Reply J.v.d.V.:

Hi Patrick,

Thanks very much for your quick and informative reply. I must say that I’m somewhat surprised to hear that the Trump Administration is even talking to the AIIB – it seems to me somewhat at odds with the general direction of his public foreign policy. I’m not surprised that the US contribution to the AIIB capital base is the remaining point of negotiation – it may not play well for the US to be financing infrastructure investment overseas. That being said, if past accessions of major Western economies are anything to go by, I doubt that we’ll be hearing in public how much capital the US will (still hypothetically) be putting in. Incidentally, if you do have any information about how much other countries have paid in, that would be much appreciated.

We are working for a few Japanese government bodies, keeping them abreast of developments generally related to One Belt One Road – so the information about Trump’s team negotiating membership of the AIIB would naturally be highly interesting to them.

Best wishes,

J.

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:

Norfolk,
Monday aft 19th.

Johan.
Hello, and thanks for your note.
I have a few quite treasured sources left over from my correspondent days, which I spent primarily in Asia. They provide me w/ a kind of reach I wouldn’t ordinarily enjoy. My good fortune. A good columnist used to be someone who had been around many bushes and withdrew from the field to reflect on events w/ authority. I may or may not be good, but that is how I came to the craft. Nowadays, people declare themselves columnists when they’ve no such experience–w/ the result that the quality of their work fails to rise to the occasion and the craft is discredited.
In any event, it was one of these sources, writing via e-mail from Beijing at the time of the Belt and Road summit, who gave me the information. He’s a former investment banker of some note, now an investor w/ a strong (vertical) presence in commodities. He knows his stuff, is v plugged in at v high levels, and proves out consistently.
So I have it from a sound source, tout court. He added, and this didn’t make the column, that the effort was under the direction of Wilbur Ross at Commerce and that the remaining point of negotiation was (this did make the column, I think) how much the U.S. would be required to contribute to AIIB capital.
I don’t know how you intend to use this information, but I stand behind it and can say w/o hesitation that it comes from a highly accurate source–and has not been refuted since I published.
I hope this is of some help.
My contacts are below it you’d like to be further in touch.
Kind regards.
Patrick.

From J.v.d.V.:Subject: Trump negotiating AIIB membership?

Dear Patrick,

I just came across your piece in The Nation, “How China is Building the Post-Western World” – wondering if you can expand at all upon your claim that Trump officials are negotiating a US accession to the AIIB?

] [

From D.P.:
Subject: Not A Single One

Hi Patrick-

I hope you’re making progress on the latest project and just wanted to note the absence of comments on your last Nation piece. It’s worthwhile, engaging, highly relevant, and no one had anything to say about it?

At least there’s been some good news – the UK election was the pre-quake tremor. I see Corbyn at No 10 within six months, which will be a joy. Had the DNC not spiked Bernie Sanders’ campaign, we might have had a similar explosion in the youth vote.

Regards,

Dave

] [

From F.S.:
Subject: your letter to the nation re “russiagate” etc

thanks!
couldn’t agree with you more..if you’re interested,my opinion, or at least several expressions of it, can be found at my blog:

legalienate

] [

From J.S.:
Subject: Bravo on your The Nation article about a coup

Hi Patrick,

Bravo! on your The Nation article about a coup going on.

I especially liked your point about the importance of being FOR something, not just against something. In that spirit I think you may enjoy my book, “NO RICH AND NO POOR: The Populist Goal We CAN and Must Win” on sale at Amazon.com. Perhaps you’d like to review it also.

The CIA, from inception to approximately early 1980’s was never liberal. I have a library of over 800 books on just this period of U.S. history. They were ultra right wingers, atheists, Ayn Rand one of their gods.Thanks.

] [

From R.G.G.:Subject: Impeachment

In an article, ‘Are We Witnessing a Coup Operation Against the Trump White House?,’ you asked if the ‘Cold War’ was as idiotic as the current neo-version. I suspect so – but the press then was afraid of being branded as communist and so the information available was at least as unreliable as now. Maybe even more so given that there was no ‘alternative’ media readily available. That would be especially true if one was a mono-lingual english-reader. I was then, until I took Russian in both high school and college, totally dependent on the approved view of the ‘Good, the Godly, the Great’ America. While getting my hands (or eyes) on any Russian language news was nigh on impossible, what was available was mostly anti-American/capitalist and therefore unreliable as well.

In my view, Americans are (by and large) haters — whether called Manifest Destiny or Exceptionalism – most Americans are taught from birth to automatically hate the ‘other’ and Russia is today THE other to hate.

] [

From P.Y.:
Subject: How China is building the post Western world

Patrick,

Bravo ! Wonderful piece you wrote. I shared it with many friends and they all are very much impressed.
You are absolutely right, the major US press, NYT, WSJ basically ignored the whole Chinese new Silk Road Initiative. Last time we saw you was Dori and I attended your wedding in the HK Club in 1989. We moved back to Seattle in 1990 and now we live in Kirkland, WA.
We visited your old friend D.L. in Geneva several years ago. Had wonderful time. If you ever come to Seattle, please let us know. My phone no. is xxx-xxx-xxxx. Again, thanks for your most perceptive article about China. Best,
Paul

] [

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:Norfolk,Sunday morn 25th.

Connie.
Hello.
I’m v grateful for your note and of course your kind words. You must forgive me for this late reply. I have been traveling. I’m v happy to send the books w/ autographs. How shall we do this? I propose I autograph them for you, get them packaged up, arrange for them to be mailed, and then advise the cost including the postal fees. I would send via the U.S. Post Office, air mail, unless you have another idea.
Do stay in touch, and thanks again for your interest in the work.
Kind regards.
Patrick.

From C.M.P.:

Dear Patrick,

Your recent article in The Nation about China led me to this site-I have found a gold mine! I appreciate your candid observance of current events and find myself agreeing with you on many a issue. What separates you from most journalists/writers is that you dig into the real issues rather than going with the pomp and circumstance, and that you are not a perpetuating ideologue. In particular, I find your take on China thoroughly refreshing, especially in the midst of all the value-laden reports from both sides of the Pacific. I listen to this Podcast program on China called Sinica and I think you would be an ideal candidate for an interview. I may just write to them and suggest they look you up (although you may already know them after being in Asia for so long).

As an aspiring writer, I also very much admire your style of writing–succinct, pungent, with just enough sarcasm. I would be honored if I could get your autographed books (Time No Longer and Somebody Else’s Century). I am including my courier address below, although being in China i don’t know if it’s possible. If not, I will just have to order them on Amazon and have them brought back from the States.

Sincerely,

Connie

] [

Reply from Patrick Lawrence:Norfolk,
Monday morn 24th.

Dave.
Thanks v much for the note. And your generous encouragement is well, well received. Ev’one who writes gets a reply–en principe, I should add, and it often takes ages for me to get to it. But yours jumps the queue.
Your one-sentence summation of our current condition goes straight to what I find myself so often writing against: Too few of us understand the gravity of the moment–what time it is, as I sometimes put it. It is always difficult, and for ev’one, to grasp one’s time as history: We are in it, history’s actors. But it is not impossible. This consciousness of history, I consider, is essential. It is how one comes to understandings such as yours.
Keep reading. You now know where to find me. A fine spring to you.
Kind regards.
Patrick.

From D.P.:
Mr Lawrence-

Recently a friend introduced me to your writing and I’m blown away. You have the tone, command, and skill of the great dissenters – Gore Vidal, Alexander Cockburn, and more currently Chris Hedges. It’s a challenge and joy to read your columns. I’m genuinely surprised to find them running in The Nation.

Unlike the novelty klaxon sounded at every closely-managed election, we *are* living in a time when we’ll either get our collective act together or, as Chomsky has said, there won’t be much more human history to discuss. In America, the growing demographic and political clout of the Millenial generation offers at least some hope.

I’m sure you’re quite busy – no need to reply.

Best wishes,
Dave
Plymouth, MA, USA

] [

From M.S.:
Dear Mr. Lawrence,

I merely wanted to drop a line and say how much I have enjoy reading your articles over the past year since discovering your column on “salon.com“. I appreciate your fresh takes and perspective on foreign policy issues affecting the US. This subject, which has always received far too little critical attention from mainstream sources, is fascinatingly complex and like you say is often covered without enough historical context. Thanks for being a bright source in our internet political coverage.

From A.B.:
Thanks for the call on Thursday. I appreciated it greatly.
As I appreciate that you are still doing thoughtful work.
Since the column on Yemen, I have been unable to escape the thought that for the cost of just building one aircraft carrier, 13 million starving people in Yemen could be fed for a decade.
The other haunting is the concept you articulated in the (dense for me) Nation column and your journal entry: there is now no means to self-correct.
Global warming is hardly a concern if we are unlikely to make it through the next four years.
Experiments such as Lula are important, even if imperfect. But the U.S. had to squash that too.
Pray for Bolivia after the UN profile in courage.
Do keep at it.
Allen in Oregon

From A.B.:
Your thoughtful work has been an inspiration to me for years as I’ve watched our profession descend into hell. Each column has taken a deep, faceted look at an international problem, with proper skepticism.
So I was deeply disappointed when I saw you took the gas attack in Syria at face value, as presented by our government and the fawning versions of reporters we now have in New York and Washington.
Does it make any sense for Assad to order a gas attack in broad daylight in a town full of White Helmets just after the U.S. declared that removing him was no longer a priority? And when he’s winning the war with conventional weapons, which he has in virtually unlimited supply?
Who benefits? Who has solid evidence? A bunch of staged photos in rebel-held territory mean nothing.
This smells of a false flag, or a strike that hit one of the many labs for chemical weapons production in al-Quaida territory. Best guess is that the rebels took a bunch of prisoners and decided they could use them by gassing them. If so, it sure worked.
And you got truly taken, in my estimation.
I do hope you come back with something more on this that meets the ordinary standards of your extraordinary work.
Allen (former AP, Post-Dispatch, WSJ, and many small community papers)

Tim.
Thanks v much for this note. I always appreciate it when readers take a moment to write. And especially, I have to say, readers of the Journal. My working assumption is that when I post in Cu Chulainn I am whispering in the wind.
It’s interesting to read these thoughts coming from a former advisor to Mr. Blair. I couldn’t be more thoroughly in agreement. In my view, and w/ reference to the American scene, I do not think this egregious righteousness we now see among liberals is at bottom a political question. It is a psychological question. There is something far deeper than politics driving these people.
I started an essay a couple of months ago w/ the working title “On the Pleasures of Hating Donald Trump.” The title comes from the great Hazlitt, who wrote “On the Pleasures of Hating” for The Plain Speaker in 1826. In it he explored all the psychological purposes served by one’s contempt of others. My brief essay became an extended essay, and the extended essay shaped up as a brief book, and now the brief book shapes up to be more than brief. When I am well enough along I will start posting bits of text. I mention all this because I think it goes to your points.
We are amid the more or less complete collapse of principled disinterest in our institutions and consequently the collapse of institutional authority. Few of us could be prepared for a reality of this magnitude, but this is not an excuse to avoid it. We are required to renovate the frame of all our thinking.
Again, I am grateful to see your note. Do keep reading, and we can remain in touch.
Kind regards.
Patrick Lawrence.

From Tim:
Agree with the Comments on Trump. As a former Blair Government advisor, though from a more left of centre background in a mining town in Wales, I have been shocked at the infantilism of my former colleagues and indeed comrades at both Brexit and the Trump victory. Bad losers isn’t the half of it. There is a massive arrogance and ignorance at the heart of this. The latter is the more ironic given that ‘educated’ upset Remainers and Clinton worshippers appear not to know what Joe Average knows before he gets up in the morning: that the EU is a busted flush, is anti-democratic and has no idea what to do about the economy or migration. Similarly the non educated knew that Hillary would not bring the change the country and they needed. And she ran a dud campaign based on another idiocy – identity politics. The wonder is not that the non educated have been taken in by fake news. It’s that the educated have been taken in by fake politics.

Just finished your recent piece on Salon. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am saddened every day by the way people swallow their stories whole without any investigation. From Christians who don’t realize that the Last Supper was probably a Passover sedar to “conservatives” who don’t understand that they’re actually radicals, we have become a nation of frightened AND ignorant people. Sad, sad, sad. Thanks for turning on a flashlight in a VERY dark room.

I’ve been working on a history of the modern period comparing it to the Axial Age (800-200 BCE). If you’d ever like to discuss some of these issues, feel free to get in touch.

Ken.

From B.R.:
The post I read on Salon today is about the first I stayed with. Alternet usually (it seems to me) does better.

I’d like to edit your column. Some nerve, huh?

I’ll have to reread to see how a Krugman/Chomsky dialectic works in your thinking.

I am 80 y o & have a politically aware son who is 50. We read different writings. By occasionally reading what he reads, I observe changes in meanings of words and new words with meaning I have to look up.

I bought Naomi Klein’s book but I don’t have to read it because I knew it already. I just read Superforecasting by Tetlock—not really a lot of news there, either.

Since you are well positioned to educate Americans, I encourage you to write for the full spectrum of us. You churn out a lot of copy. Maybe some of it could be targeted toward the people with the least sense of history.

Maybe “root of evil” is not good language for U.S. interference in democratically elected governments elsewere . . . but it is, IMO, criminal.

(Which is a culturally defined word , too.)

Language, semantics, are important. For example, there is no such thing as race and there is no such thing as identity. Yet people live their lives as though there is/were. Political discussion needs its lexicon cleaned up and polished.

From S.B.:
Apropos we brought this on ourselves, what manner of being colonizes, unleashing a near genocidal fury upon millions for close to one hundred years, with added flourish at the dawn of the 21st century, and expects no retribution especially at home? Perhaps a “civilized” apex predator hotly mournful at the loss of some of its own kind, blithely uncaring of its prey’s losses and lamentations. Sociopathy undergirds and subverts this rank order, at home and abroad.

Let us hope that a Syrian ceasefire fashioned in Vienna by a Congress of Great Powers, together with the Iran nuclear deal, ushers in a new era. See link below.

Best,
Sioan.

From B.D.:
Hi Pat[rick],

It’s been a long time since we former Daily News copy boys were last in contact, and I hope all is well with you.

Just came across your post on Salon; I’ve been trying to make that point (among others) with a Romanian-American friend who is quite the Islamophobe.

I’ll be in NYC on-and-off over the next couple of months (currently at our country home in upstate NY), so if you’d care to get together for a beer or the like I’d be more than pleased to see you again. So, let me know.

Best regards,

Bob.

From J.D.:
Kudos. Literally the first thing that came to my mind on 9/11 after the first plane and before the second one was “The chickens have come home to roost.” Getting people to see how our “Western” values and actions are disjunct with our foreign policy and force projection is beyond difficult. The irrational religious beliefs that engender false identities, illogical positions, and fear of other people are the root cause of the world’s most persistent and bloody problems. For me,

Jeff.[This letter breaks off.]

From L.O.E.:
I have been waiting for someone other than myself or a few keys friends to say what we all think.

L.O.E.

From Keith Brand, mrpanda@yahoo.com:

A big hearty go fuck yourself you cunt.

Keith Brand.

From P.H.:
I enjoy reading your columns as they provide insights that I can’t read in other places.

When I was growing up in the 70’s my next door neighbor was a guy named Milton Burgh. His name isn’t important, but he was a writer for Walter Cronkite. One time I bragged about being news aware and he snorted something about the New York Times containing “All the News that Fits.” not ” All the news that’s fit to print”.

Well I had to leave after the Bush reelection, a country can make a mistake in electing a new president once, but re-electing the same jackass …

We in Australia made the mistake of electing Tony Abbott, but he didn’t even make it to his first re-election. His own party did him in after looking at the polls.

Cheers,
Paul.

From J.P.B.:
It’s not DECADES, it is centuries. The West has been invading Arab lands since 1050. Establishing the Israeli State after WWII certainly didn’t help any.

Joel.

From B.L., Jr.:
We brought this on ourselves? Shocker, a lib blaming American for the acts of monster. Never thought I would see that happen.

Buddy.

From J.F.S.:
Dear Patrick,

I am an avid reader of your articles in Salon. I have read with the utmost attention your book Time No Longer, as well as the one on Japan.

Broadly speaking, I am in agreement with most of your arguments. However, in all that you write the fact that you are American is telling. As much as you are right in your arguments about exceptionalism and causality, you also increasingly show a handicap in that you partake of the very same exceptionalism.

Namely, the narrow focus, bordering on obsession, that you bestow on America’s and the West’s responsibility for everything. Which is also a form of exceptionalism. There is a vast world beyond America and its problems and actions. (Eppure si muove—said Galileo.) Maybe you should get out of only seeing these, and pay attention to the following:

There is also a marked responsibility and perversion in the countries and societies of the Middle East, independently of our actions there. Many important historical studies point to the social, economic, cultural and scientific gap between these societies and those of the West and East Asia.

Other parts of the world have also endured attacks from, and wars with, America and the West, and they never reacted with systematic acts of terrorism, but rather with political action combined with military action, when possible. Think slavery, colonies, apartheid, Vietnam, etc.

Nowhere in history, except the Nazi-regime, have we seen this intimate association between societies, their culture and religion, and the systematic cult of terrorism and glorification of death, and their general backwardness in all aspects of life.

I think you should also pay attention to these factors, and stop seeing the world exclusively through American lenses.

From R.G.:
I enjoyed the depth of your article on Sanders’ foreign policy. I do have a question though. Is it necessarily ideal that foreign and domestic policy be linked? That certainly hasn’t been the case for many European social-democracies especially France who the late Christopher Hitchens accused of having a jackal regime.

If Sanders is of the Social Dem Playbook 101, what fundamental harm to this nation would his foreign policies do if the domestic ones are realized?

Cordially,
Ryan.

From B.N.:
Hi Patrick,

Your voice is such an important one. Keep up the good work. However, your most recent piece in Salon I feel you kind of dropped the ball a little bit on. I think you gloss over too much of Bernie Sanders’ voting record and rely too much on counterpounch’s assertions. Also, his comments on drones (when we’ve made mistakes we have created more enemies) is more nuanced than you allow. Same for his statements on Syria. For your perusal his votes against funding, intervention, the status quo, etc. all post his vote against the Iraq war:

From E.E.:
This piece on Bernie Sanders is so well-, I had to make contact to congratulate you. Secondly, I am working on a book, “Jesus Dies Again” and would like to discuss collaboration with you. Write back soon. Thank you.
Ebun.

From B.D.:
Hi Pat[rick],
It’s been a long time since we former Daily News copy boys were last in contact, and I hope all is well with you.

Just came across your post on Salon; I’ve been trying to make that point (among others) with a Romanian-American friend who is quite the Islamophobe.

I’ll be in NYC on-and-off over the next couple of months (currently at our country home in upstate NY), so if you’d care to get together for a beer or the like I’d be more than pleased to see you again. So, let me know.

From S.B.:
Haass was on Fareed Zakaria’s show last Sunday, talking about a future Syria consisting of autonomous regions, Kurds, Alawite, Free Syrian, and get this, one for ISIS! Talk about a revisionist foreign policy.

Best,

Sioan.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to this letter he had just published “Testing Putin in Syria” in Project Syndicate.

From D.P.-R.:

Good morning Patrick,

I am both amused and somehow not surprised that you have met my father, who is still supervising Dignity’s health programmes (RCT went through a name change). This from Dallas, where he is also volunteering for IRC—this is what my dad deems to be retirement. Which country did you two meet in?

I was actually already planning to read Somebody Else’s Century for my literature review and am very much looking forward to it. Can’t promise anything but will undertake some lobbying efforts to find you a speaking engagement here—we had Joseph Nye back in June who still insists that America is the hegemon of the 21st century, and much as I respect him I don’t understand how he can be so blind. There are lots of Americans here and this kind of thinking, frustratingly, proliferates.

Am very familiar with the need for escape hatches, mine used to be Iquitos though I’ve never been! The UK is reaching the point of requiring escape hatches as well.

From B.C.:
Thanks for your incisive article about the policy battle between Defense and State on Syria.

Just one minor criticism about your use of “begs the question.” This phrase has gotten popular in recent years, and many people use it, as you did, to mean “invites the question,” or “brings up the question.”

But “begging the question” has a very different meaning in logic and philosophy. It means to assume the conclusion, instead of proving it. The standard example is the one where someone says that God exists, because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is trustworthy because it is the inspired word of God.

Yes, “begging the question” and “circular argument” mean the same thing. So instead of using “begs the question” why not say, “invites the question”? That way you won’t look like an uneducated fool to people who read your excellent articles.

As one who graduated from high school in 1965, I have more than a passing acquaintance with military conscription. And as much as it would appall the eighteen-year-old me to say it, the sixty-eight-year-old me thinks perhaps the first step is to resurrect the draft.

Except, this time, the draft would be universal. Some would be drafted into a CCC-like infrastructure rebuilding effort, some to be teacher aides, some to be Peace Corps or VISTA workers, and, of course, some to the military. But the assignments would be random, and as impervious to middle/upper class evasion as possible.

My bet is that the patriotic fervor for endless war might be tempered by the thought that one of our kids or grandkids might be called upon to involuntarily fight and die for a neo-con wet dream war of choice. There might even be protests in the streets.

From L.M.:
The dark state needs to be fully exposed but I can’t seem to find anything about the current beast. It would be nice to know who the primary, secondary, tertiary players are (domestic and foreign), meetings, agendas, location, and decisions, and dissemination routes for decisions.

Corporate media is obviously not going to address this need and so we rely on the web’s Salons. I want to encourage people to spread what we information we have. As you note in your article, the dark state has stepped out into the open – just barely to improve their image. People would be, in my opinion, outraged if they knew what is their goal and how they are going about achieving it.

So, we need details about the dark state and we must develop a system to get the news to the people. I would greatly appreciate any direction regarding point one.

Best regards,
Leonard.

From P.J.:
Hello Mr. Lawrence. I am not aware of Salon‘s policy on reprint, so i am simply asking for permission to reprint “This is not a Democracy…..” at Freepress.org . without edits and with link to the original of course.

I am President of the Board of directors of the Free Press (Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism), proudly assisting Bob Fitrakis et al.

Pete.

From G.G.:
As I doubt we have another fifty years left before modern civilization collapses, finding out exactly WHO was behind the 9/11 attacks will probably remain a mystery forever.

What I think CAN be accurately deduced from the available physical evidence (found in abundance at 911truth.org and elsewhere) is that pre-planted explosives, and NOT hijacked airplanes, were responsible for the spectacular carnage that galvanized the public into supporting illegal wars of aggression, which presumably were planned in advance to gain control over Middle Eastern oil supplies.

Since it been calculated that 80% of the proven fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground to avoid an environmental catastrophe, the fact is that the perpetrators’ huge success has likely doomed mankind and many innocent species to a horrible death is ironic, to say the least.

Although I realize it sounds incredibly far-fetched at face value, Richard M. Dolan and Catherine Austin Fitts suspect that the super-wealthy power elites have, through illegal “deep-state” financing, already formed a “breakaway civilization” with a fleet of space craft based on back-engineered alien technology at their disposal/